Repurposing Russian Assets to Rebuild Ukraine

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

This is a debate about repurposing. The hon. Gentleman might remember that after the first Gulf war, oil revenues were used to rebuild much of Kuwait. That is the central point that this debate is about. There is a consensus globally on the issue, with the Canadians, the United Nations and US Senators making progress in this regard. The debate is about repurposing. We have to be very careful to get the balance right. It is clear that we cannot leave Ukraine to do this on its own, so the question is: do we have the will to make this happen?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for selecting this subject for debate. I cannot be here to make a full contribution, but I just want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question. During a recent debate in this place, we pretty much came to a consensus that the first stage is to look to repurpose the frozen assets: $300 billion-plus of national assets and maybe $50 billion of individual assets. They are sitting in our hands. They are not the same as reparations; they are funds that are in very clear existence. A lot of international lawyers think it can be done. I just wondered what the right hon. Gentleman thought.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. He is right about the football team we both support—it is not the only thing he is right about, but he is right about that—and he is right that more than $300 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen by our global partners, with £25 billion here in the UK. The central point is that those assets are frozen, so the question is, what are we going to do now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

That is, of course, central to the work my hon. Friend has been doing in his Seizure of Russian State Assets and Support for Ukraine Bill. I think the House could come together to amend the State Immunity Act. I do not want to comment on the Foreign Secretary, except to say that, in my experience, if he has had an overnight flight, he can be a little prickly, but we will not hold it against him.

Since the beginning of the invasion, more than £25 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen in the United Kingdom, and more than $350 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen by our global allies, and those vital assets could be used to help fund Ukraine’s recovery. Since February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and I have been pushing the Government on this issue relentlessly, and I pay tribute to the great work of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), who tabled his ten-minute rule Bill specifically to speed up the Government’s efforts in this area.

Each time, the Government’s response to Members of this House has been that the Government support repurposing Russian state assets but that it is complex. We fully accept that, but we do not accept—and I do not think, given its mood, that the House accepts—that this issue is insurmountably complex or that we should not try to meet this challenge.

We accept the concern that, on the whole, it is not good for any Government to seize another state’s assets and that the right to property is fundamental to the rule of law, but there are exceptions to that rule. For example, the law reserves the right to fine people and deprive them of ill-gotten gains. In the same vein, we recognise concerns that repurposing Russia’s central bank reserves could violate Russia’s sovereign immunity but, again, there are exceptions to that rule. We believe that Russia’s continued refusal to comply with international human rights law or to follow the orders of the International Court of Justice are good grounds for such an exception.

Simply put, we believe that Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine represents a wholly exceptional act, from which exceptional countermeasures can flow, and we are not alone in that belief. As the Minister will know, the Canadians have had legislation in place since December last year to repurpose frozen Russian assets, and it is a similar common law jurisdiction to ours. The European Union is working at pace to ensure that Russian central bank reserves can be repurposed by the summer. Last month, United States politicians laid a Bill that would allow for state assets to be repurposed. Finally, we must remember that the UN General Assembly has voted on this very issue, adopting a resolution that calls for Russia to pay war reparations to Ukraine and for states to transfer Russian state assets into a central bank account to be repurposed. This begs the question: why, then, are the Government lagging behind our international allies in this area? We believe we must rise to this challenge, and we must rise to it now.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman again.

Sovereign immunity applies in international law to foreign judicial processes. It is clear in international law that sovereign immunity does not apply to administrative or legislative processes, such as Bills. It is quite possible for us to pursue this by tabling legislation, as America has, to secure that process in the courts. Sovereign immunity applies only to judicial processes, so it would be wholly feasible in legislative terms.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Very few countries now consider sovereign immunity to be an absolute immunity, and there have been many exceptions. Meeting damages, particularly those awarded by international courts and tribunals, is one such example. The State Immunity Act also expressly restricts sovereign immunity.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Russia’s continued refusal to abide by international law provides us with exceptions, and we should now table legislation to make it clear that there are exceptions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Where will we find half a billion dollars to rebuild Ukraine? The international community, certainly; the World Bank, almost certainly; the EU and/or the US, definitely—but we should certainly shine a very bright searchlight on the ill-gotten gains of the Russian elites who stood by and watched Putin, who relies on the co-dependency they create, systematically destroy the natural and built capital of Ukraine for reasons so spurious that they would be comic if they were not so egregious and deadly for the innocent people of Ukraine.

Let us not forget where the playgrounds of those Russian elites were. They were in Paris, in Manhattan and in Mayfair, and elsewhere in London, where their inexplicable wealth sloshed around the property markets, casinos and car dealerships of this city. The Londongrad laundromat was a clear and present threat to national security, but in the tension between national security and the Tories’ access to wealthy Russians, national security came off second best.

London is the most notorious safe haven for looted funds in the world, with much of the money hidden via London in offshore trusts in British overseas territories. Even after years of campaigning by SNP Members and other stakeholders, it took Putin’s barbarism against the people of Ukraine for the Conservatives finally to stop accepting Kremlin-linked donations and to impose sanctions on Putin and his cronies. It is clear now what lies behind this Government’s pedestrian approach to pivoting from freezing assets to seizing them: the sheer value of Russian assets held within the UK. In this instance, as in many others, when I say the UK, I of course mean London.

Contrast that with Estonia, whose Government have declared they will present a blueprint for how Russian frozen assets can be legally seized. Their goal is to use the funds to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The Estonian Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas, said last month that her country plans to offer a legal rationale for the expropriation of the €20 million in Russian assets that it has frozen. What it is to be a small EU nation that can act nimbly and remain in touch with its populace.

However, a country does not have to be a small EU nation to do the right thing. In Canada, the Frozen Assets Repurposing Act aims to allow Canadian courts to take the frozen assets of foreign officials whose misrule creates forced displacement and humanitarian needs. It essentially foresees new powers to seize and sell assets of sanctioned Russian oligarchs while repurposing the proceeds to help with the rebuilding of Ukraine. In Switzerland, should an oligarch fail to demonstrate the lawfulness of their wealth, the law on asset recovery would allow for the confiscation of frozen assets without the need to commence a separate civil proceeding. The European Commission has also followed suit, presenting in May a new directive on asset recovery and confiscation. The proposal seeks to modernise EU rules on asset recovery through a series of measures, including an asset recovery and management office with the power to trace and identify criminal assets, ensure that frozen property does not lose value, and enable its sale for the purposes of rebuilding Ukraine.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

To clarify, there is a difference between the seizure of private assets and the seizure of state assets. Sovereign immunity simply does not stand in the way of the seizure of private assets, which requires only that legislation be passed, therefore negating the sovereign immunity. I accept that the Government could do that quite quickly—they have been talking about it—but state assets are a bigger issue because of state immunity. Again, legislative action could be taken, but it should be done in co-operation with other states so that there is no flight of capital.

[Dave Doogan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, particularly because he highlights, as he did in his earlier intervention, the issues to do with state immunity. At the heart of this debate is an appeal for urgency on legislation that tests the very boundaries to which he refers. I take no issue with that intervention.

In contrast with what is happening in other jurisdictions, the UK has yet to transform its words about hoping that the proceeds of sanctions pay for reconstruction into a more informed policy and legislation-focused debate with action to follow. The UK cannot afford to be the weakest link in the western alliance’s struggle against Russian illicit finance. We recommend, as a minimum, that the UK Government review the designation criteria underpinning the global anti-corruption sanctions regime to consider whether an abuse of function would provide greater flexibility for FCDO officials to impose designations. Any new legislation must be properly funded, of course. New laws are useful only if they are properly implemented with the correct resource. Economic crime has been the poor relation in UK policing for too long. Economic crime enforcement in the UK is woefully under-resourced, particularly given the scale of the challenge posed by dirty money in the UK economy.

The UK has taken some steps—if belatedly—to freeze assets, but it must now legislate at the earliest opportunity to seize Russian assets, in accordance with international ambition and international law, with adequate funding and in co-ordination with allies who have done the same. While other countries are taking strides to legislate for how frozen Russian assets can be lawfully seized, the UK Government are, thus far, yet to make the transition from warm words to legislative effect. We need a step change on that immediately.

Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), a key voice on all Bangladesh issues, particularly this one.

Since being elected to this place I have had the opportunity to visit Bangladesh three times, which is quite a lot really. I initially went to Bangladesh because I have quite a large number of British Bengali constituents; I met a few people then and made a few connections and ended up going twice more—the only times I have been to Asia are when I have been to Bangladesh.

I have been to the Rohingya refugee camp three times as well. When going somewhere a number of times there is a danger that the power of the experience might diminish, but it has not. Every time I visit the Rohingya refugee camp I leave with the same feeling and sensation, and I believe that that will continue to be the case if I visit again.

I have been to lots of different parts of the camp, including Bhasan Char, the island, where I took part in a quick game of football. There are some ways in which the accommodation there is better than that of the main camp; I understand others have concerns about it, but there are some opportunities for livelihoods there, which is not the case in the main part of the camp.

I remember a lot of the conversations I had at the Rohingya refugee camp, and I remember the look in the eyes of a couple of the refugees I met and the slight terror in their eyes when I spoke to them about their experiences. That will probably be what sticks with me the most, particularly from the visit I made to the camp in January when I went with the all-party group on Bangladesh. I will never forget some of those conversations. They really are the most genuine refugees it is possible to meet: the experiences they have gone through; the horror they have experienced; a lot of the women there have been repeatedly raped, and have lost fathers, sons or husbands in the most brutal of ways; chased, driven from their homes purely for their ethnicity, their religion, for who they are—hated for what they are; driven from their homes for what they are.

Sadly, it continues to be the case that huge numbers of people of Muslim faith across the world continue to experience this persecution, and that should never be forgotten. No one religion is immune from dipping its toes in evil; we have seen that in Myanmar, and we must never forget that.

I went to the camp in January with colleagues including the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin). I forgot to thank him at the start of the debate for his successful application, which I was happy to support behind the scenes—I am a Parliamentary Private Secretary so I could not officially do so, but I like to think that I was a steadying force of support behind the scenes. Four of us went on the trip in January and I was the only Conservative Member of Parliament, but the politics have been stripped out of this issue: it is about our humanity, and I feel very passionate about working closely together. Actually, it is good that, on a Tuesday when a lot of people have other things on their mind, there is a decent turnout and it is a cross-party turnout for the debate. That should be taken into account. I am really pleased how many people have turned up for the debate and how many speakers we will have and interventions will be made.

From what we could see, a lot of good things were happening at the schools that we went to. Burmese was being taught to the children there. The children seemed happy. But my concern is about when they get a bit older because of the inability to have a livelihood, or to have any future at all. That is when a lot of the problems start. Many teenagers and people in their 20s and 30s are completely directionless with nothing to do and can be victim to gangs: that is a significant concern we had when we left the camp. The situation they face is unique because they have effectively become stateless. That puts them in a more vulnerable position than almost any other group of refugees in the world. I do not want to start comparing different types—a refugee is a refugee—but they are particularly vulnerable; they are stateless. It is true that, when they first found safety in Bangladesh, a lot of them were just thankful to be free from persecution. However, one year became two years, three years, four years and five years, and they look to the future and see no hope.

When it comes to aid, the UK has made a generous contribution. The Government have to make really difficult decisions in the wake of the pandemic, where hundreds of billions of pounds were spent, so I am not just going to say that it was a mistake to cut the international aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%—I was one of the people who completely understood why the Government did that—but there is a question: within the 0.5% we are spending on international aid, could we channel more to the Rohingya camp to support them because the demands have only gone up? The population of the camp has increased, so, if anything, the amount of money that we should be providing should be going up, not down.

We have played a leading role through the UN and the UN resolutions. It has been disappointing that many other countries have not played a bigger role in condemning the Myanmar regime. There is a question about what role India and Pakistan are playing in condemning the Myanmar regime. Are they comfortable with the role that they have played? Do they think that they have done enough? I think it needs to be an international response.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I apologise for intervening. My hon. Friend is talking about countries that could do more. Is not the reality that a big, important country is deliberately undermining any efforts made on the Rohingya, and that is China? It is about its relationship with Burma, its support for Burma, weapons and everything else. It is doing this all over the world. Surely when the Government think about our relationship with China, they need to consider what China is doing in other countries and not just among the Uyghur Muslims.

Relations with China: Xi Jinping Presidency

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The information I have suggested that the Chinese Communist party was going to try to use its influence to ensure that any choice would be the choice of the Chinese Communist party, but if, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is some control over that, that would be one of the good things that could come out of this.

The issue of forced organ transplantation from members of the Falun Gong has been in my heart in this House for some 10 years now. It is being done on a commercial scale, and people have lost their lives. We must never forget the impact of that on the Falun Gong.

There is also the persecution of Christians. Churches have been destroyed, with secret police sitting in church services, taking notes of those who are there, and recording car numbers and which houses people return to. We have also had the rise of cyber-surveillance in China, which is another indication of those being imprisoned, beaten and injured all because they happen to have a different religious opinion. Today, we had some good news: the Government indicated that they would suspend their agreement with TikTok. That is good news when it comes to security issues, and we must welcome it.

In my time as an MP, I have seen the UK move from the “golden era” espoused by David Cameron and George Osborne to the confusion and lack of cohesion on China under this Government. In each case, the policies were driven by economics. Economics is of course relevant, but our policies must encompass other important factors such as our human rights obligations, and take into account our moral compass and what we believe. There is a real fear that focusing solely on money would mean that the UK’s fundamental beliefs in human rights and the rule of law are subjugated for the purpose of trade deals. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to that; it is one of the key issues, and I seek clarification and encouragement from the Minister on it. That would be great for China and other authoritarian states, but terrible for the UK’s standing in the world. I urge extreme caution and recommend change.

We are watching in real time the reduction of democratic states and the rise of authoritarian regimes. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 23 countries out of 167 monitored in 2020 could be called democracies. Fifty were considered authoritarian, and the others attained some form of flawed democracy or hybrid system, more likely than not under the control of one person.

China and Russia are leading the global rise in authoritarian states. They are seeking to build their own alliances, disrupt democratic processes in other countries, interfere in elections, and create their own channels for communication and cyber-control away from the norms and standards expected by international treaties. They support each other at institutions such as the United Nations, where the evil axis gathers together to defend each other’s interests and provide financial and political support for one another. The unfortunate thing for us is that democracies seem incapable of working together to fight back against that in a single-minded, focused manner, so I have great concerns.

The Chinese Government have committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against the Uyghurs since 2014. I and others, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is in the Chamber, have raised that issue. Abuse is also perpetrated against other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang province. This is the largest scale detention of ethnic and religious minorities since world war two. It is of that size; it is almost impossible to take in the number.

The United States has declared China’s human rights abuses a genocide, as have legislators in several other countries, including Canada, the Netherlands, Lithuania and France. We have even done so in this House of Commons in a debate led by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. The Parliaments of New Zealand, Belgium and the Czech Republic condemned the Chinese Government’s treatment of the Uyghurs as severe human rights abuses or crimes against humanity, which they truly are.

China continues to deny any wrongdoing and threatens politicians and even entire countries with retaliation simply for daring to raise and debate these issues. Diplomats are deployed to berate senior Government officials and speak at news stations to explain that everyone is wrong and at this is all just Sinophobia and anti-China rhetoric. No, it is not; it is much more than that.

Atrocities in Tibet have been going on since 1950—so much so that we barely react any more. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has spoken about Tibet for as long as I have been in this House, and long before that, I believe. He has highlighted it on many occasions. We cannot forget about it. We need to focus on what is happening there, which is hard to take in, with regularity and ferocity. Children are forced into re-education boarding schools as a way of eradicating their language and religion, with the hope that they will reject their own families and culture. Such policies have left a trail of family destruction and have cut cultural and historical memory.

China plans to choose the next Dalai Lama, but I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that those of the Dalai Lama’s religion will make that choice. I hope that will be the case and that China does not influence it in any way. We wait to see what happens.

Hong Kong wants to be a peaceful and prosperous city, a thriving economic and social hub in Asia, and truly global in its influence, but it has been brought to its knees in just three years since the introduction of the national security law.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am grateful—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of courtesy, he should have been here at the beginning of this debate.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I understand. I was about to explain and apologise, Sir Edward, for not having got here earlier: a Minister waylaid me.

On Hong Kong, the Americans have now sanctioned about 10 people in the Hong Kong Administration for their behaviour over the new security laws. The UK, which once used to be responsible for Hong Kong and is a signatory to the Sino-British agreement, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is a balanced position to take on Hong Kong?

[Jim Shannon]

It is certainly not balanced. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has highlighted this point in the Chamber on numerous occasions. He consistently and regularly points directly out to the Government that this matter must be addressed. If we are going to do things right, and it is our job in this House to do so, that has to be addressed. If the United States can sanction more people than we could even consider—I understand the number is maybe two in our country—we have to and we must do more. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on all he does; we recognise his contribution.

The national security law is an arbitrary piece of legislation, the details of which were kept secret until after it was passed. It criminalises any act of disobedience or dissent, and any challenge to the Government can be swept up in the catch-all categories of secession, subversion, terrorism and, crucially, collusion with foreign or external forces. Rather than being used to protect people, the national security law is being used to silence—the very opposite. Newspaper and internet news outlets have been shut, journalists arrested and protesters detained—all accused of one or more of the four national security law charges.

The most infamous case of the law being used to crush media freedom in Hong Kong as that of Apple Daily, the most popular newspaper in Hong Kong, which is pro-democracy and openly called out Chinese Communist party activities. It was founded by a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, whose spent his 800th day in a Hong Kong prison last Friday 10 March. His national security law trial is repeatedly delayed, as the Hong Kong authorities scramble to find a new set of legal machinations just to keep him in prison. He is a British citizen. We should be doing more for him. I do not see that, and it disappoints me.

China has broken its promises to Britain and to the people of Hong Kong that the city would enjoy its way of life under the one country, two systems formula, which promised a high degree of autonomy for 50 years following the 1997 handover. Hong Kong is now a puppet state of China. The recent multimillion dollar campaign, “Hello Hong Kong”, called on the world to come to the reopened city. It fell flat, given that 47 democracy campaigners were put on trial the very next day. Welcome to Hong Kong—“If you come to Hong Kong, here is what happens to you.”

Across the world, China seems to be at the centre of multiple political and economic scandals, whether that is spy balloons over America or interference in Canada’s election. There seems to be an increasing sense that China has never been bolder in asserting itself around the world. The belt and road initiative, adopted by the Chinese Government in 2013, to invest in more than 150 countries and international organisations, is considered a centrepiece of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s foreign policy.

We can see China’s tentacles across Africa and in countries around the world. The policy has been used to extend Chinese economic and political influence around the world. It has been used to secure votes at multinational organisations such as the United Nations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and in many regional groupings across the world. It forces countries into debt economics. Even EU states now have ports, docks and infrastructure projects funded by the belt and road initiative, at a time when the EU should be shoring up its own defence, cyber and technological strategies. The initiative is causing splits inside the EU and creating division among Governments. That is great news for China and for other authoritarian states.

Here in the UK, we have seen the rise of China’s economic and political engagement. In 2022, more students came to the UK from China than anywhere else. Nearly one in four international students is from China—approximately 152,000 students. Of the 2,600 international students studying at Queen’s University in Belfast, we have a vibrant Chinese community of more than 1,200 students.

Along with that, we have seen the explosion of Confucius Institutes across the UK. The United Kingdom is host to 30 Confucius Institutes, more than any other country. Their ostensible purpose is to teach Mandarin and to promote Chinese culture, but in reality they are part of the above-ground arm of the Chinese Communist party’s United Front Work Department.

According to a 2022 report by the Henry Jackson Society and the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, those 30 institutes have been funded to the tune of as much as £46 million, mostly from the Chinese Government. Unlike the British Council, Confucius Institutes are formally part of the propaganda system of the Chinese Communist party, dependent on Chinese Government funding and, in general, subject to People’s Republic of China speech restrictions. Although Confucius Institutes are described as language and culture centres, the report confirms that only four of the 30 institutes stick solely to language and culture. Quite clearly, they do their own thing and ignore much of what is going on.

Operating from prestigious universities such as the University of Edinburgh and the London School of Economics, Confucius Institutes have been informing Government policy and politicians, offering consultancy services to business, promoting trade and co-operating with UK organisations that work with the United Front Work Department, the interference activities of which were recently highlighted by MI5 and reported prominently in the papers and media. That is not innocent language and cultural exchange.

In spite of the political attention paid to Confucius Institutes, and the press and academic attention during the last six years, the pattern has gone unnoticed, and its ramifications have been ignored—an issue that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green brings to this House on many occasions. To combat those negative practices, the Government should consider the introduction of legislation to remove Confucius Institutes completely from UK universities. Will the Minister confirm whether the British Government will do just that? Further, it has been suggested that the Government should provide funding for UK universities to allocate to China studies and bolster knowledge regarding China’s presence in the UK. I believe that that merits consideration. It is not the direct responsibility of the Minister, but it is certainly one for Education Ministers.

Time is passing, but I should mention the fact that many believe that there is a notable level of political interference—from funding from Chinese nationals to Members of Parliament, to the beating of Bob Chan in Manchester last October. I am sure we all vividly remember this man, who was beaten by the Chinese consul general and other diplomats in full view of the public and cameras. The consul general then went on TV to admit to and justify his actions; he did not even feel ashamed or regretful. The appropriate action should have been taken, yet it appears that it was left to fade into the background. Eventually, two months later, China recalled the diplomats, and it appears that no steps whatever were taken by the British to send the message that that behaviour is not tolerated. Again, that is disappointing and regrettable. I always say things respectfully to the Ministers, but I want my Government and my Ministers to be strong when it comes to standing up for human rights and against things that are wrong across the world.

As a nation, we should be seeking constructive relationships with countries around the world. I understand that not all will be savoury, but we should be making human rights and good conduct cornerstones of our foreign relations—even, or especially, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, when it comes to trade and development. That is what sets our country apart from authoritarian ones such as China. There is no reason for the UK not to have a constructive relationship with China, but we should not be afraid on any occasion to say no and to show strength, and we need to do that more regularly and more courageously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do and I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement this week of the submarine deal between the UK, USA and Australia. That shows that there is a commitment, although of course we probably want to see much more than that. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I thank her for that intervention.

If we think that things are bad now, imagine the pain that will be inflicted on the UK and the world when—I use these words carefully—China invades Taiwan. Hon. Members will note that I said “when” rather than “if” China moves to take Taiwan. Xi Jinping has reaffirmed his commitment to communist Chinese rule of Taiwan, by force—his words—if necessary.

We cannot fall asleep at the wheel while getting lulled to sleep by the comfort of investments, trade, and cash flows. We should begin the careful process of reducing our reliance on Chinese-made goods and products right now. Let us start taking a careful look at where British businesses invest and give them warnings that contracts and treaties may not be upheld, and to be careful about where they invest their money.

Let us start speaking up for those who are being oppressed in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. Let us get British citizen Jimmy Lai out of prison and let us not ponder solely on how China might react, but instead give China pause for thought about what it might lose by not working with the United Kingdom.

I believe in good relations; I also believe in doing what is right, as we all do in this Chamber. I know that there is a balance to be struck.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on him again. However, I just want to make the point that I have met Jimmy Lai’s family, and the one thing they asked for is that the British Government give full public recognition to the fact that he is a British citizen and a British passport holder. The British Government have said that they will not do that because it might exacerbate problems, but honestly Jimmy Lai knows and expects that after the next court case this year he is likely to be imprisoned for a very long time—maybe for the rest of his life. He wants the world to know that he is a British passport holder and British citizen; he is proud of that and wants representation.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman makes the case for Jimmy Lai. I think the Minister—I am sure that he is taking note of all this—and his officials will ensure that Jimmy Lai becomes part of our priorities in this House now and for the future, as should be the case.

As the Bible says—Sir Edward, I know that you and I read it every day—

“speak the truth in love”.

I do not see the balance thus far. I ask the Minister to look at where we are, and where we need to be, and to begin the journey there. Human rights and moral obligations are not merely desirable; they are the very foundation on which any relationship should be built. We have a chance to change this situation—to move it upwards—and get it right. That is what I urge the Minister to begin to do today.

We are all here for one purpose: to speak up for those who have no voice—and there are many of them. Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken up for others across the world on many occasions. Today we focus on the evil intentions of China. Yes, we want to work with China, if possible, and address human rights and religious liberties, and the right for people to have freedom of expression in relation to where they worship. Those things are not happening there. We must highlight that today, and ensure that our Minister has a firm grip of what is happening. I hope that the Minister will respond to our asks.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who said most of what I was going to say but I will give it a go anyway. Let me start with my declaration of interests—they are not at all financial, otherwise there would be a problem—as somebody who has been sanctioned by China. That is something I am very proud to shout about at every opportunity. I also declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, an association I have had for many years, and before this place, as the hon. Gentleman said.

Another day, yet another debate on China’s abuses of human rights. Earlier in the Chamber, there was another announcement relating to China, on TikTok, which I will come on to in a minute. This debate is about relations with China under the dictatorship of President Xi over the last 10 years, so it is worth starting by looking at some of the words he has said on the record and then putting some meat on the bones of how that has actually worked out in practice.

In March 2013, Xi Jinping started his first five-year term as the President of China. More consequentially, in November 2012 he first assumed the two most powerful positions in China: general secretary of the Chinese Communist party and the chairman of the party’s central military commission. Changes in leadership positions in China’s one-party state are made every five years and normally follow a two-step process: the first occurring in the CCP and the second involving the Government. At the CCP’s 20th party congress in October 2022, Xi was appointed general secretary for a third five-year term and once again as chair of the party’s CMC, confirming his dominance over the party and the country at large. That third term appointment broke the recent precedent of the country’s leadership serving only two terms.

More recently, on 11 March, he secured a precedent-breaking third term as President of China, as well as chairman of the CMC, with nearly 3,000 members of the National People’s Congress voting unanimously in the Great Hall of the People. Funnily enough, no other candidates ran. Effectively, he is becoming a dictator for life, the likes of which we have not really seen since the fall of the iron curtain and some of those potentates under the control of the Soviet empire in eastern European states before they were able to win their liberty and return to Europe, freedom and democracy.

In his speech in March to the National People’s Congress, Xi Jinping said:

“Since its founding, the Communist Party of China has closely united and led the Chinese people of all ethnic groups in working hard for a century to put an end to China’s national humiliation.”

Note that he mentioned working with “all ethnic groups” across China; I think there are 57 different ethnic groups. That does not really apply if someone is a Uyghur, Tibetan, a Hongkonger or of Mongolian ancestry. It has not really worked out well for them. He said:

“the Chinese nation has achieved the great transformation from standing up and growing prosperous to becoming strong, and China’s national rejuvenation has become a historical inevitability.”

On military and defence, he went on to say:

“We need to better”—

a split infinitive, I apologise—

“co-ordinate development and security. We should comprehensively promote the modernisation of our national defence and our armed forces, and build the people’s military into a great wall of steel that can effectively safeguard our nation’s sovereignty, security and the interests of our development.”

On Taiwan, he said:

“Realising China’s complete reunification is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, as well as the essence of national rejuvenation…resolutely oppose foreign interference and separatist activities aimed at ‘Taiwan independence’ and unswervingly promote progress towards national reunification.”

Those words should not come as a surprise. Two years earlier, in a speech—I am quoting selectively, but I think you will get the gist, Sir Edward—marking the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist party, he said:

“We will never allow anyone to bully, oppress or subjugate China…Anyone who dares try to do that will have their heads bashed bloody against the Great Wall of Steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people…Only socialism can save China, and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China…No one should underestimate the Chinese people’s staunch determination, firm will, and strong ability to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity…The historical task of the complete reunification of the motherland must be fulfilled, and will definitely be fulfilled.”

I watched a programme last night about the Nazis in the 1930s, and so much of President Xi’s language there was redolent of what was heard in the 1930s under Hitler. It is a shame that Gary Lineker did not refer to that as well, because that is where the real dangers lie. It is chilling when one listens to the very words that the people running China put into the public domain. We should take them exceedingly seriously. For previous Governments to refer to “golden ages” of relationships between the United Kingdom, the west and China, under the same dictator who expressed those words, is a complete fantasy—and a dangerous fantasy at that. We need to wake up to that.

I worry greatly about the threat that China poses. It is a threat, whatever language the Government might like to use. Let us touch on the China 2049 policy, which President Xi has been following. China 2049 in an overarching plan, set out by the President in October 2017, when he used a speech to describe a broad plan to achieve national rejuvenation by 2049. The date would mark the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China by the CCP. It largely refers to the CCP’s plan to transform the Chinese army—the People’s Liberation Army—into a world-class military by 2049. A mid-term goal is to have completed the modernisation of the PLA by 2035.

According to an annual report from the Pentagon to the US Congress in November 2021:

“The PRC is increasingly clear in its ambitions and intentions. Beijing seeks to reshape the international order to better align with its authoritarian system and national interests, as a vital component of its strategy to achieve the ‘great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.’”

China seeks to achieve that by merging foreign policy, economic power, defence and military strategies, and its Government and political systems into one master plan. Everything is traduced to that. Everything China does has that long-term, great goal in mind.

China now has the world’s largest navy, with roughly 355 ships and submarines. The People’s Liberation Army has 975,000 active duty personnel in combat units, and has accelerated its training and fielding of equipment at a pace exceeding that of recent years. It is also expanding its nuclear weapon capabilities faster than previously predicted. The rapid acceleration of Beijing’s nuclear stockpile, which could top 1,000 deliverable warheads by 2030, is designed to match and even surpass the US global military might, according to the Pentagon. The US has 3,750 nuclear weapons in its stockpiles, and has no plans to increase that figure. The Chinese air force is the world’s third largest, with more than 2,800 aircraft in total, 2,250 of which consist of fighters, strategic bombers and attack aircraft. That expansion is part of the great Chinese plan to dominate the world economically and militarily, as well as in other areas that I will come to.

That is the context in which we have to judge the threat posed by the actions of President Xi and his Communist party cronies. We know how that has panned out in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and elsewhere. Some of us have often been lone voices in the wilderness on the plight of the Tibetans. Since the early 1950s, and particularly since the invasion and takeover of Tibet in 1959, what has been playing out in Tibet—with the 1 million Tibetans who have lost their lives at the hands of the Chinese Communist party dictators—is a forerunner of what the CCP is capable of doing, and is doing, within the borders of China; and what it would like to do beyond the borders of what we recognise as China.

The hon. Member for Strangford fleshed out many of the horrors going on against the Uyghurs. It is estimated that several million Uyghurs are being held captive in concentration camps, where activities include mass surveillance, torture and repression of religion. They are interned for reasons that include communal religious activities, behaviour indicating “wrong thinking”—whatever that is—or for just no reason at all. The World Uyghur Congress observes that the camps operate as prisons, with no communication with family outside. The CCP regime is pursuing a campaign of forced sterilisation and forced abortion, along with the destruction of the Uyghur language. China is trying to erase the Uyghur people.

In 2021, Uyghur regions set an unprecedented near zero population growth, given the effects of sterilisation. According to Dr Joanne Smith Finley, a reader in Chinese studies at Newcastle University and a fellow sanctionee, when she interviewed a Uyghur man from Ürümqi, he said that some people were given medicine in those camps to change their thinking, only to become mentally ill. The CCP is aiming to wipe out three specific categories: intellectual Uyghurs, rich Uyghurs and religious Uyghurs.

A sub-committee in the Canadian Parliament has concluded that the acts carried out by China on the Uyghurs amount to genocide by the general accepted definition. That was the conclusion of the Uyghur tribunals, so well presided over by Sir Geoffrey Nice at the end of last year. That was the conclusion of a unanimous vote in Parliament at a debate we held last year on the subject. It is about time the British Government acknowledged that the Chinese are guilty of genocide and continue to wage that ghastly oppression against the Uyghur people. Many other Parliaments have acknowledged it. We must catch up.

This is not just about the Uyghurs within the borders of China. Uyghurs abroad have also been intimidated and spied on through apps such as WeChat by the Communist party, according to the Uyghur Human Rights Project. The late former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said,

“As a Jew, knowing our history, the sight of people being shaven headed, lined up, boarded onto trains, and sent to concentration camps is particularly harrowing.”

We all saw those grim images and have heard so much that the Communist party has developed multiple levels of surveillance in the forms of Skynet and the “Safe City” and “Sharp Eyes” projects to keep track of every movement of its citizens. Of course, it is also spying on us through devices made in China and deployed across the west, including in the United Kingdom. Virtually weekly, we find a new case of the Chinese being able to survey what is going on in sensitive institutions in the UK.

Xi Jinping’s Tibet policy has been the systematic eradication of any and all distinctive features of Tibetan identity, carried out unchecked despite blatant human rights abuses. It includes plans to control the next incarnation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the uprooting of Tibetan children as young as four from their families into colonial boarding schools, the resettlement of Tibetan nomads and farmers in unfamiliar environments, including the harsh and uninhabitable frontier areas of Tibet along the Indian border, and Government-imposed restrictions on studying Tibetan language and religion.

Free Tibet and Tibet Watch have noted that the CCP has introduced massive changes in the past five years, from forcibly relocating Tibetans to clamping down on all aspects of religion, culture and language. Anyone caught in possession of a simple photograph of His Holiness the Dalai Lama is subject to a minimum five-year jail sentence without any questions being asked. Recently, the new crackdowns have led Tibet to be ranked 176th out of 180 countries by the Reporters Without Borders foundation in its press freedom index and to be ranked among the worst for civil and political rights in the “Freedom in the World” report by Freedom House. There are more foreign journalists in North Korea than in Tibet, such is the closed society. Our ambassador has not been able to travel to Tibet for several years now, nor have any of her staff. Most notably, torture and mistreatment have increased dramatically without impunity.

Chinese culture and the Mandarin language has been deemed the correct way forward after the 11 January 2020 passage by the 11th National People’s Congress of the “Regulations on the Establishment of a Model Area for Ethnic Unity and Progress in the Tibet Autonomous Region”. They are meant to safeguard the one-ness of the motherland, but contain punitive measures to punish those defecting from this one-ness.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my hon. Friend recall that about a year and a half ago on the border of Tibet and India, Chinese troops aggressively tried to push the border back again, and a number of Indian soldiers were killed in that process? They have never once issued any kind of apology, and they continue to see the border as a moveable point to where they want it to be. There’s no diplomacy there.

[Tim Loughton]

That is the problem: the Chinese constantly test and push the parameters. They literally push the borders in that case to test the resolve of the west and those around them to stand up, take issue, object, call out and do something about their abuses of the international rule of law and the basic human rights that we all take for granted. That was one of many incidents. I am sure that many more have gone unreported.

The hon. Member for Strangford did a fine job of outlining Hong Kong as the latest hotspot for China’s oppression of all liberties. There are the ongoing 47 primary national security law cases. The trial of the 47 people charged with conspiracy to subvert state power in the Legislative Council, launched by Hong Kong’s pro-democracy campaign in 2020, officially began on Monday 6 February. The 47 people were charged with conspiracy to subvert state power and organising and planning acts to undermine the Government. That may well be what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I are guilty of under the terms of our sanctions, but we have never actually been fully told. None of the very nice people in the Chinese Communist party head office have written to tell us why we have been sanctioned and on what basis we might be unsanctioned.

All 47 defendants were denied bail and have been held in custody for more than 700 days. The prospect of a fair trial is, of course, derisory. In August 2022, the Department of Justice directed that the case would be heard without a jury and would instead be adjudicated by a bench of three national security judges, who were appointed by Hong Kong authorities.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Hong Kong used to be a beacon of freedom, liberty, the rule of law, enterprise and entrepreneurialism in the far east. How quickly virtually all those characteristics have been snuffed out. There is not even a pretence that there is a fair trial any more. It is disgraceful that there were—and still are—some lawyers from the United Kingdom and other western countries sitting in the so-called courts in Hong Kong and overseeing the Mickey Mouse justice that the Chinese Communist party have imposed on previously free members of the community in Hong Kong.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise for intervening on my hon. Friend again, but there is a further extension of that. I pointed out to the Government the other day—to no less a person than the Prime Minister—that, about a year and a half ago, the United States officially warned all their companies that they can no longer rely on the application of common law in Hong Kong as a protection of their business interests. The UK Government have yet to do anything of the sort. It is, of course, some Commonwealth and UK judges who still continue the farrago of saying that they somehow protect those interests.

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend is right again. Too often in this country, we seem to be playing catch up with some of the much more proactive and obvious measures taken by the US Administration, usually with unanimous support across all parties in Congress. Many of those laws are now having an impact on China and beginning to make it wake up to the fact that its actions have consequences. I fear that, too often, it is because people in this Chamber today and like-minded colleagues put pressure on the Government that, eventually, they might just catch up with some of the measures that should have been passed into our law at the same time as they were passed in the United States.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Does Mr Duncan Smith wish to speak?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do not.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

You might bear in mind your colleague.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. We do not take enough time to consider relations with China in the round. When we talk about it, it tends to be very specific, so I welcome this opportunity. There has been little said today that I would disagree with, if anything, so there is a broad consensus in the Chamber.

We have all watched, with concern and alarm, developments in China over the past decade: the strengthening of the state’s grip over civil society, the well-documented civil and human rights abuses, and the growth of mass surveillance of the population to an extent we have never seen before. Those are causes for great concern. There is something almost unique about China. Throughout history, the UK has had to work with other countries and Governments with whom it has profound philosophical and political disagreements, but never has a country penetrated our economy and society to such an extent as China has over the last generation.

It strikes me that the interface between us and China does not happen out there, in a place beyond these shores; it happens in the towns and cities within these islands. There is considerable Chinese investment and ownership in our economy. There is a degree of intervention in academia and our universities that is without precedent. In my city of Edinburgh, there are thousands of Chinese students, and the same is true in most of our universities. Our universities have grown wealthy by charging these students from middle-class Chinese families considerable fees to come here; it has been a very big growth industry for them. When it comes to communications, among other things, the Chinese influence is quite certain, but we seem to have little capacity to understand, analyse and be aware of this interface. I hope that the Government will look at how that could be improved, and how we could develop that capacity.

We have heard the Government’s strategy described as “robust pragmatism”. If I knew what that was, I might agree, but until we get more definition, it is difficult to do so. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster implied today in the main Chamber that “robust pragmatism” means being aware of China’s economic influence and our economic relations when we formulate our attitudes towards it, and when we take action. That much is self-evident, I suppose. Let us hope that “robust pragmatism” does not mean setting aside our concerns or our criticisms about human and civil rights abuses because of that economic relationship; it cannot mean that. We need a strategy from the Government that shows how we can press our case on international human rights while navigating the economic relationship, and how, on occasion, we can use that economic relationship as leverage to achieve other social and political goals.

To conclude, I have three questions to put to the Minister, which I hope he will answer in his summing up. First, we have had a lot of discussion about Hong Kong. An international agreement has clearly been broken. Is it not bizarre that there are national sanctions on individuals in Myanmar, Russia and Belarus, but not Hong Kong? The breaking of that agreement, the way in which it was traduced and the movement in a different direction has not happened by accident; there are people making it happen. Those people ought to be identified and sanctioned by this country, as they have been by other countries. When will we see Magnitsky-style sanctions against people in Hong Kong, to hold them responsible for what they have done?

Secondly, the SNP has long pressed for the establishment of a commissioner to look at foreign investment in this country, with a view to examining illicit foreign investment. We see such investment particularly from Russia, but there is a case for looking at Chinese investment as well. It would be a step forward to have a commissioner who was charged with examining incoming finance and determining whether any of it was illicit.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill last year that sought to outlaw imports from Xinjiang unless it could be proven that the products were made without the benefit of forced labour. We ought to be able to do that. Given what we know about the human rights situation in that region of China, there should be an onus on those involved to give that proof.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Companies that import from China can have no excuse for not doing that, because companies such as Oritain can track all the genetic fingerprints. They can tell exactly where a product was grown or manufactured, and what happened to it. There is no excuse at all. The Government should get on with doing this.

[Tommy Sheppard]

But to be clear, there is no reason why we should not oblige importers to prove that the products that they import were not made with slave or forced labour. That seems a very easy way in which we could use our economic capacity to enhance and protect human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

Seeking to be up to date, I will ask the Minister of State for the Indo-Pacific to write a letter to the hon. Lady to that effect.

Let me move to the issue of Hong Kong. The hon. Member for Strangford raised this in meaningful terms and noted where China’s national security law has stifled opposition and criminalised dissent. Of course, the UK Government acted quickly and decisively to introduce a bespoke immigration route for British national overseas status holders and their immediate family members. More than 150,000 BNO visas have been granted, providing a route to UK citizenship. We welcome the contribution that that growing diaspora makes to life in the UK, as we welcome the contribution of the diaspora with links to mainland China. We will continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, as agreed in the Sino-British joint declaration.

Let me turn to the issue of Taiwan. China’s military exercises in August last year undermined peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. Those are not the actions of a responsible international power. The UK has a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan strait. This issue must be settled by the people on both sides of the strait and through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo.

To conclude, China under Xi Jinping poses an epoch-defining challenge with implications for almost every area of Government policy and everyday life in Britain.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I want to take the Minister back, because I thought he was going to be a bit more explicit about the BNO passport and the situation of Jimmy Lai. May I just elide the two, because they are relevant, and press my hon. Friend to be a little clearer? There are BNO passport holders who have fled over here, to the UK, who are now deeply worried about their status. They think of Jimmy Lai and see that the British Government seem quite incapable at this stage of making it publicly and absolutely clear that he is a passport holder and citizen and of publicly demanding access rights to that man, who is incarcerated. If they will not do that for a British passport holder, what do the BNO passport holders feel about their status? Does the Minister realise that that will be very damaging?

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for the question. It is a good opportunity for me to highlight the fact that the Minister for the Indo-Pacific has met the family of Jimmy Lai. I think, therefore, it would be right for me to give my right hon. Friend the reassurance that that Minister will write to him with an update and an answer to that question.

On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out how we will protect our national security, align with partners and engage with China where it is in our national interests to do so. First, we have already taken robust action to protect UK interests and values since the last integrated review. That includes new powers to protect our critical industries under the National Security and Investment Act 2021; and in relation to Hong Kong, we have acted quickly and decisively to introduce a bespoke immigration route for BNO status holders and family members.

Secondly, we will align and deepen our co-operation with core allies to influence China. That includes being the first country to lead a joint statement on human rights violations in Xinjiang, and sustaining pressure on China by broadening the range of countries speaking out. Thirdly, we will engage with Beijing on key global issues such as climate change and the war in Ukraine. We will continue to press China to join the UK in pushing Putin to cease all hostilities and withdraw his forces from Ukraine.

Under the integrated review refresh, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set the direction across Government for a consistent, coherent and robust approach to China that is rooted in the UK’s national interest and aligned with our allies. I commend this strategy to the Chamber today.

Russian Assets: Seizure

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to lay before Parliament proposals for the seizure of Russian state assets with the purpose of using such assets to provide support for Ukraine, including the rectifying and rebuilding of war damage brought about by the Russian invasion of that country, and to facilitate the prosecution of war crimes and atrocities; and further calls on the Government to provide progress reports on this policy to the House every six months.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Before my hon. Friend disappears from the Chamber, may I say that this is a very timely debate? So much of it is connected to the last debate, which I congratulate him on securing, because it feeds into this one: it is all about what has happened to people.

Just before Christmas, I was privileged to visit Ukraine along with the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). It was an eye-opening trip and it was hugely relevant to today’s debate. It shed for me a more personal light on the desperate nature of what was happening to the Ukrainian people, which I was able to witness for myself. We were fortunate enough to go there under the auspices of Siobhan’s Trust, a charity based in Scotland and founded by a man called David Fox-Pitt. That allowed us to be close to the frontline, where the charity does its work. It feeds some 4,000 people a day on hot pizza, which they would never get normally and which bucks up their lives. However, most of them live in shelters and in terrible conditions.

All around we saw the devastation inflicted on the villages. Many mines had been scattered, leaving us unable to get off the paths, and in the villages lay dead bodies which, even by then, had not been collected because of the mines. These were people who had brought no harm to anyone—and, by the way, many of them were Russian speakers, which goes to show exactly how ghastly President Putin and his Administration really are. They have caused all these difficulties through the murderous nature of this terrible war brought on the heads of ordinary, normal Ukrainians; that is the state we are in.

Seeing all that devastation made me all the more certain that we must press on and do more to bring these criminals to justice, and make full reparation for the damage and destruction and loss of life that they have caused. I congratulate my own Government and, indeed, the whole House on coming together to do huge things in Ukraine with their support through arms and weapons and training, and I congratulate ordinary individuals outside the House on their generous contributions of money. The fact that we are united demonstrates a very strong sense of purpose to the rest of the world. However, there is more that we must do; we cannot sit back and say that we have done our bit. This is a progressive war and we will be tugged along with it, so it is time that we thought of getting ahead of some of these problems.

I believe that we are being visited today by three Ukrainian MPs: Mr Dmytro Natalukha, whom I met in Kyiv, Ms Maria Mezentseva, and Ms Olena Khomenko. I think they are somewhere in the Public Gallery, although I have not managed to see them yet.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the Ukrainian MPs who are with us today. A letter has been sent by 45 Ukrainian MPs to our Prime Minister urging him to do precisely what we want, which is not to freeze assets but to seize them. Given that support from the Ukrainian Parliament, does he not agree that there is now an urgent need for the Government to be bold and to act?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do agree with the right hon. Lady. We have a lot of Russian assets that are currently frozen, while Ukraine is screaming out for money and support to help all those devastated areas. We can bring the two together, and that is what today’s debate is all about.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I am sure the right hon. Member is also aware of allegations that a number of the people sanctioned have moved their money around into trusts to give to their children in order to avoid having their assets taken. Does he agree that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill should be strengthened to require sanctioned individuals to disclose assets that were owned six months prior to their designation? That would prevent oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich from moving assets around and evading the sanctions.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I entirely agree. I was going to raise that point at the end of my speech, but never mind: this is a shared debate.

I fully back that proposal, which is one of the recommendations that we have to make so that the Government can jump ahead of this. Too often we have been slow and, in the six months that have elapsed, in some of those cases, people have shifted their money around into all sorts of areas. One particular individual—I was going to name him, but I will not do so now—has managed to buy flats through a Cyprus company. His name is not registered, but they own it and the money is lodged there. This sort of stuff is going on and we need to shut it down.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. Of course, the largest amount of Russian frozen assets are those of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Yesterday, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), said that, if we do not have the right law in place to use those frozen Central Bank assets to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction, we should change the law and test it in the courts. I agree with her; does my right hon. Friend?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is jumping ahead of me, so I will allow that point to stand for a minute.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), whose ten-minute rule Bill was on exactly this subject. There was a lot of logic and sense in that Bill, and we should use it as a baseline for quite a lot of the stuff that needs to happen. As he pointed out when he made his speech on the Bill, in the last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recorded 18,358 civilian casualties. He went on to say that 7,031 people had been killed, that 11,327 had been injured, including 177 girls and 221 young boys, that some 12 million people had left Ukraine and 7 million had been displaced internally. When I was there, I saw many people who had had to move to Lviv internally because their homes were no longer habitable, and they were living in terrible conditions.

[Vicky Ford]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I want to make a bit of progress, just in case my right hon. Friend is about to tell me what I have got here in my speech. Forgive me if I just get ahead of it, because everyone else will probably do the same.

Let us have look at the costs of the war, which are really what this is all about. Ukraine’s death toll is 60,000 and it is rising every day. The cost of reconstruction is now estimated to be between $750 billion and $1 trillion and rising, and these might be conservative estimates because the damage is still not fully accounted for. Since the beginning of the invasion, the UK has provided £2.3 billion in military assistance and another £220 million in humanitarian aid. The UK has frozen billions of pounds in Russian assets under sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has reported that £18 billion of assets owned by individuals and entities associated with the regime have been frozen since the beginning of the war, but some estimates suggest that more than £40 billion could yet be frozen and this is the point we want to get to.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

I, too, have just got back from Ukraine. I was there a couple of weeks ago and saw the immense devastation across the country, specifically in those areas that were Russian held. Importantly, this Government looked at plans to repurpose assets last July but they still have not done it. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is now imperative for the Government to look at repurposing those state assets in order to start rebuilding and restructuring the country and offering that important aid?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.

I want to talk about what Russian state assets are frozen and what could be frozen. It is important to note that, in Congress right now, they are already discussing this—I spoke to someone there just 24 hours ago—and in Canada, they are seriously talking about it. European Parliaments are also discussing the matter. This is a moment for us to give a lead on this and help to shape the nature of it, as we have a conference coming up shortly and I wonder whether that might be the place to lead on this matter.

According to the Bank of Russia’s own 2021 annual report, £26 billion of Russian state reserves are in the United Kingdom and, on a wider level, western Governments have now frozen some $350 billion of Russian central bank reserves in response to the invasion. There is yet more that they could do. The combined value of frozen UK properties belonging to Russian oligarchs is at least £2 billion. Funds frozen under the UK sanctions regime are passive, and that is the problem. Those funds would enable us to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine and to show Russian dirty money the door. This is the key: we send the message and we help with reparations. Several countries, including Canada, as I said earlier, and the EU are already on to this process and I urge our Government to help to give a lead on this.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the Canadians have gone even further? My understanding is that they have already started taking action by pursuing the forfeiture of US$26 million from Roman Abramovich’s holding in Granite Capital Holdings Ltd. If Canada can do it, surely we can, too.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with the right hon. Lady. If countries do this individually, it will allow terrible regimes to dodge their money around from one financial centre to another, as some will not have done it. This has to be done in one go by all the developed world’s major centres, otherwise it will end up with disputes and problems. I applaud Canada for starting, but we need the City of London, New York, Zurich and all the other major centres to be serious about making sure this cannot happen and these assets will always be seized.

I can tell the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), that we understand the underlying problem, but my point is that the issues are not insuperable.

[Vicky Ford]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point, but I draw his attention to another source of funds. There are increasing stories that the Wagner Group may be using gold stolen from Sudan’s gold mines to fund part of its atrocious activities in Ukraine. The Wagner Group is obviously guilty of atrocities not only in Sudan but elsewhere in the Sahel and Africa. There are stories today that the Italian Defence Minister is directly linking the Wagner Group to the increase of small boat migrants in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as taking action on Russian assets, we should urgently proscribe the Wagner Group as a terrorist organisation?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes, of course. It is a disgusting organisation led by a disgusting individual carrying out disgusting atrocities in Russia. It is also using slave labour in some of these mines. Of course the Wagner Group must be proscribed, as should the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other such organisations. We should be at the forefront of this, not lagging behind.

The Government’s general belief is that seizing these central bank reserves would violate Russia’s sovereign immunity and would therefore be a breach of international law. If we think about it, Putin has redefined international crime and is now hiding behind international law. It is time for us to come together to make the modifications. That is the key.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that there may be something to learn from the Iraq war? Iraqi assets under Saddam Hussein’s rule were used— there was a formal legal process under which people could apply for those assets to rebuild infrastructure that had been damaged in Kuwait and elsewhere. I wonder whether the Government, when they answer the debate today, would say whether they are considering a similar process—a formal legal process under which Russian assets could be used to finance construction work in Ukraine.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I would happily welcome that. It is a very good idea.

Ultimately, the war Putin initiated on Ukraine must now be punished in a variety of ways. It is unwarranted aggression against another country, and it therefore changes how international law should be applied. We should readjust and redefine international law to the new reality that Putin’s invasion has brought about. The old order is now broken, and we need to redefine it to make sure that the lesson for any other oligarch, future leader or demagogue is that they can never again hide behind these rules.

Although international law is always evolving, we need to recognise the exceptional nature of Russia’s aggression and conduct in Ukraine, as that is critical to what we do next. Russia’s aggression and invasion are breaches of the most fundamental principles of international law and order. Russia is aware of this breach but has not stopped its conduct, and it continues to threaten international security and peace. That unprecedented conduct creates a need for all Governments in the west to amend their laws together to deter other states. These amendments should use specific and limited criteria to preserve sovereign immunity in all cases. It is possible to do both without hiding behind the idea that sovereign immunity is an absolute that cannot be breached. Putin has breached it, and in future that should be the rule.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill could and should be strengthened to enable the seizure of undisclosed assets—that is the key. We already have a vehicle. It is wholly possible to make that difference, and to make it quite quickly. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I hope she will give that serious consideration, as it is really important.

As we know, sanctions evasion is already an offence. Embedding a new “disclosure or lose it” principle would go a long way to ensuring that sanctioned oligarchs are no longer able to conceal their dirty money here with impunity. That would help us to clean up what became a bad reputation for the City of London, whereby much of that ill-gotten money was hiding here, in one of the leading nations of the free world, and we did little or nothing to stop that.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I get a bit frustrated when I keep hearing the Government talking about how many people we are sanctioning. There is no point in sanctioning people unless we enforce those sanctions. I find it difficult to comprehend that so far we have fined only two firms in this country. I am sure that there are many more sanctions busters in the UK than have thus far been revealed. It is important that that is not allowed to proceed with impunity, is it not?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Of course, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Interestingly, if we manage to criminalise the failure to disclose sanctioned assets, we are halfway there on his point, because they cannot then escape. If we prove that sanctions evasion is taking place, this can be the basis for asset recovery in due course; we would then have a reason why we should be doing this, not just because of the criminal purpose, but for the fact that we would actually be able to gain funds.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Is he as worried as I am about this new trick that the Treasury is performing called “general licences”? There are now whole categories of spending where the Treasury is basically issuing carte blanche to oligarchs to spend what they like and, worse, it is refusing to reveal that framework to us here in this House.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; this is beginning to sound like one of those “golden visas”. It was golden in description, but dirty and leaden in reality, and I think this is where we are again. We are going to find us all in agreement—

[Bob Seely]

Is the problem we have not shown, for example, in Abramovich’s allegedly shifting about £7 billion of assets out of the country the day before? What he did was perfectly legal, because I believe this was shifted to the United Arab Emirates or somewhere else in the middle east and his lawyers knew about it. In the United States, there is now talk about going after the law firms and the accountancy firms that help the oligarchs and that have helped these individuals to move their money around just before they have been sanctioned or to find ways around sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way here is to go after these middlemen and women? We have not done that, but the problem is that what these people are doing is not necessarily illegal —they are shifting the money before it can be sanctioned, and money is a movable asset, unlike a house in Belgrave Square.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree. These individuals, Abramovich and others, may want this to be done, but somebody has to do it for them, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to follow the chain down, because we have to capture all the individuals down the chain, not just the one at the top. That is the key, because without those, this does not happen. He rightly says that, to avoid the sanctions, three weeks before the war began Abramovich was busy restructuring radically his assets. I believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that between £4 billion and £7 billion was squirreled away as a result, and we were not able to do anything about it. But we should have been ahead of the game on that one.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent contribution. I want to say one thing: I do not think the Government are using their current powers as effectively as they could on this issue. Under section 11 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the powers can be used against somebody “associated with” the person sanctioned. If that is the case and I have read the legislation right, does he agree that the Government could have stopped Abramovich giving all this to his young children and could have sanctioned them because they were associated with Abramovich himself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am beginning to feel that I am making a collective speech, because the right hon. Lady’s point is down here in my notes. It is better made by her than me, but I fully agree with her as a result.

We could have got ahead of this—that is the point, as the example of Abramovich shows. Many others have drifted off, so the right hon. Lady is absolutely right: we needed to be quicker and more determined. Now, we have to sustain our determination to flush all this out while we have the opportunity. I always sense a little resistance. When we call it out, the Government say, “Ooh, we don’t know. We’ve got lots on our plate and we are doing lots of things,” but this is the time to act.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to participate in my Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall the other day. This is not just about oligarchs; it is about companies that are sanctions busting. I am aware of a Belarusian company that imports goods through Russia in order to undermine and take customers from a business in my constituency. Does he agree that, whether it is an oligarch or a business, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation and the Foreign Office should be adaptable and able to react to rogue actors, who will do everything possible to avoid the sanctions regime?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I must say, the hon. Lady’s debate was fascinating. She demonstrated that by our failure to follow this course, a UK company is essentially sanctioned because it is unable to get payment. The measures bounce back at us and honest, decent companies find themselves trapped by the failure to square the circle of the process and get everyone all along the chain. It was a brilliant debate, and I congratulate her on raising the subject on behalf of her constituents.

The Government should introduce new legislation to allow the seizure of already-frozen assets that are linked to criminality. The Russian Government have a huge amount of money of course, but many oligarchs are guilty of benefiting financially from war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, so we should activate new legislation. Under such a mechanism, an enforcement authority such as the National Crime Agency could bring proceedings in a UK court to have property belonging to a sanctioned person involved in a gross violation of international human rights law or international humanitarian law confiscated without compensation, so that the frozen property can be used to fund reparations. That is the key.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

That is a really important point. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I know that Ukrainian parliamentarians, including those from the Rada who are in the Gallery, are desperate to repair and reconstruct their country. The air raid early warning system in Ukraine is broken—only 12% of the country is covered. They need reparations to be able to wage war and to reconstruct their country.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I obviously completely agree.

If we did this, we could have tougher sanctions. A recent example involved Eugene Tenenbaum, a close associate of Roman Abramovich—I am told that “Abram-oh-vich” is the correct pronunciation—and former Chelsea football club director, who was given permission by the Treasury to sell his Surrey mansion for £16 million a month after the Government designated him for UK sanctions and froze all his assets. How did that happen? Why did that happen? Who is not talking to someone else to tell them what they are doing? We are letting stuff slip through because we are not being serious about implementing measures properly.

I could give plenty of other examples. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the boss of the Wagner Group, is deeply involved in another current row about aircraft leased by western companies to Russia that were seized after sanctions were imposed. The Russians are refusing to pay reparations or hand the aircraft back. Huge amounts of money are available to these people. I have a list, but will not go through all the names, because I realise that many others want to speak.

Putin’s brutal invasion has now entered its second year. The Government must amplify their efforts. They have done a great deal, and I congratulate them on much of it, but much more is needed. The Government need to get right down into this issue and make sure that we have a plan for reparation and rebuilding of Ukraine. Let us start with the dirty money—that is the key. We may yet have to give more money, and so may America, but let us start where the bill lands first: with those who are responsible for this brutal invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are a peaceful and decent people whose lives have been turned upside down. Families have been destroyed or have had to flee, and many young men and women are now having to go to the frontline for the first time as soldiers and put their lives on the line, standing for the freedom of their country. We must seize those assets wherever appropriate and ensure that Russia is held to account. As I said earlier, there is much to say “Well done” to the Government for, but there is also much more that needs to be done.

I will leave hon. Members with this simple thought: as we come together across the House, let us also try to work out how we can bring all the other western Governments together in this action. To do it by ourselves will, I recognise, be a slight problem, but if we could get the US Congress, the Canadian Parliament and the European Union to engage on this, then we would have something that would frighten the Russians completely and give us the tools to finish this particular job.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

As hon. Members have recognised, we are honoured to have been joined by colleagues from the Ukrainian Rada who are in the Gallery this afternoon. We welcome you; we salute you and the courage of your country in your fight for democracy.

I must just gently say to hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will start at 6.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to all who took part in the debate. What we have shown here, including to all our Ukrainian friends, is the unity across the House on this issue, and that we will remain united until the invasion is over and Ukraine has received the money it needs.

A summary of what Members have said today, for my right hon. Friend the Minister, is this: we have to do more. We have to do more to implement existing sanctions, and then we have to do more to start the process of enabling ourselves to seize those assets—first Government assets, then private assets—and work in concert with our friends.

I end with a simple message to our friends in Ukraine and those who are here today—it is a huge privilege for us to have them here. We will stay with them until this is over. It will be over when the reparations have been paid, when Ukraine is rebuilt and restructured, and when the Ukrainians have their freedom again. Slava Ukraini, heroyam slava!

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to lay before Parliament proposals for the seizure of Russian state assets with the purpose of using such assets to provide support for Ukraine, including the rectifying and rebuilding of war damage brought about by the Russian invasion of that country, and to facilitate the prosecution of war crimes and atrocities; and further calls on the Government to provide progress reports on this policy to the House every six months.

Integrated Review Refresh

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his question. The details of how the Secretary of State for Defence will spend his budget I will have to leave to the Secretary of State for Defence, but the Integrated Review Refresh sets out the broad parameters. The £5 billion brings us up to about 2.25% of GDP, which is well on track to that 2.5% commitment. As I have said, I will leave it to the Defence Secretary to give further details of the nature of that expenditure and the capabilities and equipment that it will cover.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome some of the report, but I want to return to the issue of China, in which, as someone who has been sanctioned, I take a particular interest.

I have to say that I am somewhat confused about what the Government’s position actually is. It was the Prime Minister who, when standing for election, said:

“China…poses a systemic threat”

—there was then a backdown to “systemic challenge”—

which we would meet with “robust pragmatism”. That “robust pragmatism” means that we have sanctioned no one in Hong Kong while America has sanctioned 10; that we have sanctioned three low-level officials in Xinjiang while America has sanctioned 11, including Chen Quanguo, the architect of that terrible atrocity; and that we did not kick out the Chinese officials who beat people up on the streets of the UK. Now, however, I understand that “systemic challenge” has moved on to “epoch-defining challenge”. The document that the Prime Minister has produced today does refer to that “epoch-defining challenge”, but then goes on to use the words

“in the face of that threat”.

Does that now mean that China is a threat, or an epoch-defining challenge, or a challenging Government epoch, or even none of that?

[James Cleverly]

I reassure my right hon. Friend that in every meeting I have had with representatives of the Chinese Government, I have raised specifically their sanctioning of him and others in this House as being completely unacceptable behaviour. I have challenged them on every single occasion that I have had conversations with the Chinese Government.

I understand the desire to have a simple, short phrase or a single word to describe our posture towards China, but with a country as big, influential and significant as China, it is impossible to distil it down to a simple set of words or a phrase. That is not something we do with any other country in the world. We recognise that international relations are more complicated, so in the IR refresh there is more of a narrative than a single-word description. We want to describe the areas where we can and should work more closely with China, the areas where we need to defend ourselves and our interests against China, and the areas where we want to steer China into a different course of action. So there will always be descriptors, plural. I understand my right hon. Friend’s desire for clarity on this, and he will see through our actions that we will respond robustly to China when it behaves in a way that we disagree with, but we will also attempt to steer China in a better direction.

Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation: Sanctions and Tariffs

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Member entirely.

This winter, the people of Ukraine carried on through the difficult war that they face, and we need to back their bravery by being brave and bold with sanctions and tariffs. However, the joint sentiments are worthless if things do not happen in practice, and sadly this is the case for a business group in my constituency. I recently met SGG Manufacturing Ltd, JDUK Ltd and Alunet Systems Ltd—a small group of wholly UK-owned businesses that I am glad to see represented here today. They are based in a number of MPs’ constituencies—particularly that of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), who apologises that he is unable to attend, but he is absolutely on board with the case that I am about to raise.

Prior to the war, the businesses were, in part, the sole and exclusive distributors of a Belarusian manufacturer. They imported and distributed aluminium extrusions and products from Belarus. For example, they supplied components for roller garage doors—not the most glamorous of products, I agree, but over 10 years these British businesses had grown their revenue to £30 million per annum. Over 10 years, they had managed to supply 30% to 50% of roller garage doors in the UK using their components.

Then, the war in Ukraine happened. In response, the businesses did the right thing. They decided to abandon their exclusive contract with the Belarusian manufacturer and sourced their components from elsewhere in Europe—a decision that was expensive, risky and lengthy but nevertheless the right thing to do. The Government then introduced additional tariffs of 35% on Belarusian and Russian goods, which made it clear that the decision by those businesses was not just the moral thing to do but the right thing to do from a business perspective—that is, if the sanctions and tariffs were implemented effectively. Unfortunately, they were not.

The original Belarusian supplier is now managing to circumvent the sanctions and is continuing to import banned products. It is also able to pay the relatively low additional tariff of 35% with ease, so it can operate very competitively in the market. The British group, based in my constituency, has played by the rules and has had to find a more expensive manufacturer elsewhere in Europe.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, and we recently looked carefully at the implementation—the reality, as opposed to the Government’s rhetoric. We are discovering that there are big holes in what is actually happening, with far too little consideration given to the detailed implementation. We also sanction far fewer people who are guilty of transgressing our rules than the US does. The hon. Lady is on the right track, and I congratulate her on that, but perhaps she would like to press the Government further to increase the number of people and businesses they sanction and to make sure they do it properly.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on all the work he does on not only Russia but China. We often work together. This debate is not about the grand scope of the sanctions, but about the nuts, bolts and garage doors of how they are working on the ground for British businesses and Belarusian businesses.

The Belarusian company appears to be stealing the British company’s customer base by avoiding the sanctions, absorbing the additional tariff and undercutting the British company by supplying at a lower rate. Most people would call that dumping, and it has led to a loss of roughly £10 million in revenue for this British company based in my constituency.

As has been said many times in the Commons, Russia and Belarus are trying to get round sanctions on an industrial scale, and this seems to be a case in point. I have detailed evidence of how the Belarusian company is evading sanctions, and I would like to state it for Hansard so that it is in the public domain. I also note that, although the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is responsible for enforcing specific cases, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is responsible for drawing up the sanctions and tariffs legislation.

As I tried to explain to the Minister informally last night, the way the company is avoiding sanctions is unbelievable: it is starting some of its goods in Russia. There is a list of sanctioned products codes for Russia and one for Belarus, and in some instances, the two lists do not match. As a result, a product could be sanctioned in Belarus but not sanctioned if it comes from Russia. That is exactly what is happening. The tariffs apply to all iron and steel commodity codes starting 72 and 73 in Belarus, but they apply to only specific iron and steel products that begin with commodity codes 72 and 73 in Russia. That means that some of the goods that the Belarusian company supplies are sanctioned if they are imported from Belarus but not if they are imported from Russia.

The Belarusian company supposedly managed to move an entire factory’s worth to Russia so that it can still import the goods sanctioned from Belarus into the UK tariff free, all the while undercutting a British business. I have been able to get hold of an email from the Belarusian company to one of those customers to prove that. It stated:

“We would like to clarify the situation with regard to the current import of sectional doors and operators to the UK.”

The company says:

“Since the UK Government has introduced economic trade and transport sanctions on Belarus,”

it has

“imported garage doors from our Russian factory”.

It states that

“shipments fully comply with import restrictions by the Government of the United Kingdom in the last months.”

There we have it. Because of the way our sanctions list has been drawn up, Belarusian companies are avoiding sanctions. They are manufacturing and shipping products that were originally from Belarus, and are now supposedly from Russia, to avoid the sanctions. I am glad that the Foreign Office Minister is present today, and I hope that the sanctions list is updated, because it is costing a business in my constituency millions of pounds.

In other cases, this Belarusian company is assigning its products a new, intentionally incorrect but unsanctioned commodity code, enabling it to import to the UK sanction-free. I got hold of an email from this company to one of its customers to prove that. The measures are quite technical, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I go through them in a little detail. The company stated:

“We are looking for a way to supply you with roll tubes which are currently banned from entering the EU due to their commodity code 7308905900, and it seems like we have found an option. We can bundle the roll tubes with other items. This will have a different name and a commodity code which can be imported to the EU and the UK.”

The company can change the commodity code to one that is allowed to enter the UK from Belarus, and it can evade sanctions altogether. The most egregious part is that the Belarusian company is now approaching the former customers of the British business in my constituency and offering to supply them directly, profiting and expanding its business because of the war in Ukraine. It is just unbelievable. If that is happening in one company, surely it is happening in a number of businesses right across the UK.

It is important that President Zelensky comes to Parliament to speak, that our Opposition and Government leaders visit Kyiv and that we all get together to stress how strong our sanctions and tariffs need to be. However, it makes a difference only if the detail is correct. The sanctions are effective only if the product lists are drawn up effectively and we are able to target Belarusian and Russian businesses. Tariffs are effective only if they are high enough to make goods originating from a country uncompetitive. In the recent co-ordinated package of sanctions by the US, EU and UK, only the US increased tariffs on metals by up to 200%.

As we know, Putin and his cronies will be seeking every single loophole, omission and error to try to circumvent the sanctions. It is quite clear that Russia and Belarus are actively trying to get round sanctions and absorb tariffs on an industrial scale. Currently, companies are claiming that their goods originate in Russia to avoid sanctions. That is absurd. I hope that the Minister can provide more information about that and explain how we will close the loopholes that Russia and Belarus are using.

We can have the toughest regime on paper, but if Russia and Belarus are finding ways round it in practice and costing UK businesses, we have not done the right thing. I ask the Minister to address the detail and the consequences for British business. If he is in a position to do so, I would welcome it if he gave a few minutes after the debate to the businesses that are here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I will come on to what we are doing to tackle circumvention in a little more detail. The Russians are doing everything they can to try to avoid these sanctions, because they are biting on their economy. We continually need to refresh our sanctions approach to respond to that, and we are.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden will be aware that a letter to the Foreign Secretary in January was passed to HMRC, as the lead enforcement authority for trade sanctions, for further review. As I am sure she will understand, HMRC cannot and does not comment on specific cases. However, I can assure her that the Government and HMRC take this and all reported alleged sanctions violations very seriously indeed.

I will take this opportunity to acknowledge the important role that businesses can and do play in providing us with information and intelligence about suspected sanctions breaches, such as by self-reporting. That is an important part of our sanctions enforcement architecture, and it is vital to help to inform the action that is taken.

The hon. Lady asked about steel and aluminium products. That issue relates to differences in the scope of the UK’s Russia and Belarus sanctions regimes, as has been highlighted by a number of colleagues. Different regimes serve different foreign policy objectives. Although there are links between Russia and Belarus sanctions, they are distinct. We keep our sanctions under review. Given Russia’s ongoing and outrageous actions in Ukraine, we have continued to bring forward new measures since the invasion last year.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I understand where the Minister is now, but is not the problem that there seems to be no exchange between Departments as to exactly how this works? It seems illogical to me that different countries now sanction different groups and industries in different ways. Surely, the key here—this relates to the measure that I raised earlier—is that we now sanction far fewer individuals than the United States does. On industrial sanctions, we seem to have no common purpose. With respect to the Minister, and I am a big supporter of his, he should surely go back to his Department and set out that it is not good enough to say there are different regimes. We know how involved Belarus is with Russia, and we know what the links are. We should treat them both exactly the same and get on with it.

[David Rutley]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who knows that I am also his fan, because we worked together—or, rather, I worked for him a long time ago; let us be clear about that. I respect him enormously on a range of issues.

I say gently that the UK has worked closely with our international partners to maximise the impact of our sanctions, and we have taken co-ordinated action to ratchet up economic pressure on Russia. It is not just about comparison, although I know my right hon. Friend is very hot on that issue; it is also about collective action to ensure we get maximum impact. We have demonstrated leadership in the most impactful areas. For example, we are the only international partners with designated top executives at Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation—a key Ukrainian priority.

Let me come back briefly to sanctions circumvention, which is an important issue. We will continue to bear down on Russia and Belarus by implementing further sanctions and leaning in to tackle Russia’s attempt to circumvent measures that are already in place, as we have done over the past year. That means coming down hard on sanctions evaders, closing loopholes and working with our international partners to undermine Russia’s attempts to build global resilience to western sanctions. That includes through the G7, which reaffirmed unwavering support for Ukraine on 24 February, one year on from Russia’s illegal invasion.

We are also addressing the threat of third country circumvention—that is a point that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made earlier—by using diplomatic channels to limit the size of the international market to which Russia can turn. The UK Government and our law enforcement agencies are using a range of tools to ensure that all forms of circumvention are identified and tackled, including by taking criminal enforcement action where appropriate.

We are taking action and having an effect, but I understand the points that have been raised. We will continually review our sanctions package and enforcement measures, and we will come down as hard as we can on those who seek to evade and avoid the sanctions regime.

Question put and agreed to.

Governor of Xinjiang: UK Visit

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned visit to the UK of the Governor of Xinjiang.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)]

We understand from the Chinese embassy that the governor of Xinjiang may visit the UK next week. To be very clear, he has not been invited by the UK Government or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and we have no confirmation that he will, in fact, travel. Our expectation is that he will travel on a diplomatic passport, and therefore he has not yet been granted a visa. If he does visit, I assure this House that under no circumstances will he be dignified with a ministerial meeting.

China’s actions in Xinjiang are abhorrent and we will not legitimise them in any way. However, robust engagement to challenge human rights violations and to stand up for the rights of the oppressed is at the core of the UK’s diplomatic work around the world. We must be prepared to use diplomatic channels to achieve that end, hence officials would be prepared to offer him a meeting. In line with that principle, there is only one reason why such a meeting would take place—to make absolutely clear the UK’s abhorrence of the treatment of the Uyghur people and to say that we will not relent from exposing the horrors to which they are subject. That point needs to be set out clearly to China. It is only right that people responsible for human rights violations are confronted on these issues.

The UK has played a leading role in international efforts to hold China to account on Xinjiang. In 2019, we became the first country to step up to lead a joint statement on China’s actions in Xinjiang at the UN. Since that first statement, which was supported by 23 countries, we have worked tirelessly through our global diplomatic network to broaden the caucus of countries speaking out. Our leadership has sustained pressure on China to change its behaviour and consistently increase the number of countries speaking out. Most recently, our diplomatic effort helped to secure the support of a record 50 countries for a statement on Xinjiang at the UN third committee in October.

We have imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity in Xinjiang, and have introduced robust measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains. We have consistently raised our concerns at the highest level in Beijing. Let me be absolutely clear that we will continue to emphasise at all levels that the world is watching what China’s authorities say and do in Xinjiang. They cannot hide their abuses. The UK and our allies will not turn away.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I find that response from my hon. Friend, for whom I have the highest respect, to be a very weak turn from the Foreign Office. The Uyghur region in north-west China has been the site of severe human rights violations, crimes against humanity and genocide for more than six years. In 2017, satellite imagery confirmed that a network of internment camps had been set up throughout the region. Throughout this time, Erkin Tuniyaz has been responsible for the murderous and repressive policy, alongside its architect, Chen Quango.

Testimony from camp survivors—who are absolutely appalled to hear that a Foreign Office official will meet this individual—and leaked official Chinese Government documents, satellite images and drone footage indicate that the camps are sites of severe mass arbitrary detention and severe human rights abuses, including systematic sexual violence against women, torture and the forced sterilisation of many women. Reports of cultural and religious oppression, mass digital in-person surveillance, forced labour, mass sterilisations and abortions and a system of mass criminalisation and arbitrary detention are also completely documented.

The weak response from the Foreign Office hides something. It is not that it has invited him here, but it has made it clear that when he comes, he will be welcome to see officials. Whether or not the Foreign Office is tough, this is a propaganda coup for the Chinese Government. Governor Tuniyaz has defended the use of mass detention centres and doubled down and expanded their use. During his tenure, more than 1 million Uyghurs and other people from predominantly Muslim minorities have been detained in Xinjiang. A man who declares that nothing is going on is hardly likely to be bothered by a Foreign Office official telling him, “Now, now, you’ve got to stop this.”

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that in 2021, the House of Commons in this United Kingdom declared for the first time that genocide is taking place against the Uyghurs and other minorities in the Xinjiang region of China. Let us compare our response with that of the United States. The UK has sanctioned only three rather junior people. The US has introduced 107 punitive sanctions, five new laws, 11 specific investment bans and 10 sanctions on individuals, including Chen Quanguo and Erkin Tuniyaz. I call on the UK Government to rescind this invitation and sanction Erkin Tuniyaz and Chen Quanguo for their role in this crime against humanity and genocide. The place to deal with these individuals is in a tribunal or court of law, not in the quiet office of a Foreign Office official.

[Leo Docherty]

I appreciate sincerely the long-standing interest of my right hon. Friend in this issue, and he speaks with great sincerity and power. He draws a comparison with the sanctions regime in the US. The numbers might be different, but that reflects our desire and approach to use these opportunities to deliver a very strong and robust message. It is institutionally the judgment of the FCDO that we are better off not denying ourselves the opportunity to send extremely robust and strong messages of condemnation of the brutality that has been carried out by the Chinese state in Xinjiang. He alluded to that difference of approach, but we are confident in its utility.

My understanding is that, in advance of the suggestion of this meeting, the invitation was extended to human rights groups in the UK to afford them the opportunity to send a very strong message to this individual about their view of repression in Xinjiang. That was at the heart of what was judged to be useful about the prospect of such a meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for her long-standing interest. She rightly mentions the suffering of women and children, specifically in Xinjiang, which has moved us all. Our judgment is that Erkin Tuniyaz is not travelling because of an invitation from the Foreign Office. Given that our expectation is that he is travelling on a diplomatic passport and will be here, because he is not sanctioned—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes—he is not sanctioned. Why is he not sanctioned?

[Leo Docherty]

Because he is not sanctioned, we therefore judge that this is a useful opportunity to deliver an extremely strong message to this individual. Of course, colleagues will note that there is a differential approach with regard to the US sanctions regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek through you a correction by the Minister of something he said earlier? He said that the Foreign Office had invited those who have fled Xinjiang and are here in the UK to meet this murderous man, but in fact they were never invited; they were only invited to submit their thoughts about this to the Foreign Office, or perhaps to meet one of the officials.

[Mr Speaker]

While the Minister is here he may want to put the record straight.

Turkey and Syria Earthquake

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

As the Development Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), said this morning, we are working closely with the United Nations. We will look creatively at what we can do to support it and our partners on the ground to maximise our ability to get humanitarian aid and support to the people who need it most.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for coming so swiftly to the House and for the action that he and the Department have already taken. This would have been a terrible enough set of circumstances on their own, but to be overlaid by a brutal civil war in the same area and a very terrible winter makes it worse beyond almost imagination.

Like many Members of the House, I have many Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot constituents who are very worried about their families and are finding it difficult to get proper information. I know that my right hon. Friend has set up a hotline. I am being contacted, as I am sure are colleagues across the House, so may I suggest that it might be helpful to have a specific MPs’ hotline, so that we can help our constituents to find out as much information as possible and put their worries at ease?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We will, of course, look at the most effective way of providing information. One of the learnings from past consular challenges or acute situations such as this is that having one point of convergence is often most effective. I will not be hide-bound, though, and whether it is people in the UK trying to get information about British nationals or people of Turkish or Syrian heritage trying to get information about non-British nationals, we will look to facilitate that. Obviously, we do not necessarily hold the information for non-British nationals. I will look carefully at what he says about ensuring that parliamentary colleagues have swift and accurate access to information and update the House on that in due course.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I certainly think that is the case, and I think the constant fear of our escalating the conflict has been misplaced because Putin has escalated the conflict anyway. There is nothing we can do to prevent him from escalating. In fact, the signal we have sent by being too timid and too slow in sending support into Ukraine has encouraged him to escalate. There is no deterrence in timidity, which is what too many western Governments have shown.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

To drag together that point with something my hon. Friend said earlier, surely such timidity also follows failure to have the capability to be more assertive. In other words, now that their defence budgets have been stripped out, western Governments are worried that any attempt to try to show that they are more belligerent, shall we say, exposes the very fact that most of them are simply incapable of delivering any of that belligerence at all.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I entirely agree with that, but in more direct response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the timidity of the Germans not just to release their own tanks, but to allow the tanks of other nations, such as Poland, to be sent into the conflict to support the Ukrainians sends more than a signal of timidity—it is appeasement. I am sorry to use that word, which I know has a loaded connotation, but it is appeasement. However, we must congratulate Germany on having come a very long way from the days of Gazprom being chaired by a former Chancellor of Germany and Angela Merkel making Germany dependent on Russian gas as a matter of policy. We have come a long way, and we should welcome the fact that Germany has committed to spend €100 billion more on defence, but we are still yet to see what that really means, and it means nothing if Germany is not prepared to help send heavy armour into this conflict.

If I may say so, we have committed to send 12 tanks, but why not 120 tanks? What are our tanks for? Are they there to sit around on Salisbury plain and in Germany to decorate the British Army’s capability, or should we tool them up and get them into this conflict so that the taxpayer can actually get value for money out of this investment? If necessary, we can launch an urgent operational requirement to acquire some more tanks to replace those that we will probably not ever see again in our own country.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

I am glad my hon. Friend has taken away a large part of what I was going to say, which has made it much easier to concentrate.

Russia and Belarus have provided Serbia with 14 MiG-29 fighter jets. Eight are donations from Belarus and six are from Russia, and Serbia has bought the rest. Russia has also beefed up Serbia with 30 T-72 tanks and 30 other armoured vehicles. The Pantsir-S1 air defence system has reportedly also been sold to Serbia, along with the longer-range Buk air defence system. A shipment of Kornet anti-tank missiles has also arrived from Russia. The co-operation in military activities has gone from 50 in 2016 to over 100 joint military exercises in 2021. It is no wonder that, according to the US Department of Defense, Serbia provides the “most permissive environment” for Russian influence in the Balkans. When Kosovo took reciprocity measures regarding the temporary licence plate issues in 2021, Serbia escalated the military provocation, flying Russia-donated MiG-29 fighter jets and continuing to make available Russian helicopters on the border with Kosovo.

We know the short-term reasons why Russia is doing this: to stop Kosovo having a role to play in the EU and in the Council of Europe. We have defied Russia in the Council of Europe and given Kosovo seats so it is able to participate in debates, even though, for the moment, it cannot vote; that is because of the opposition of Serbia and that will be dealt with.

This is a serious situation because it affects not just Kosovo. We must not forget that Serbia is also influential in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hon. Members may have seen that, only last week, in the Republika Srpska, the Muslim part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb leader, with great pride said that he was giving Putin the highest medal of honour for his

“patriotic concern and love for Republika Srpska.”

I ask you. Members can judge for themselves what that concerned.

We are dealing with some very unpleasant people. The Republika Srpska has the site of the genocide of Srebrenica. We are not allowed to call it a genocide because the Serbians do not like that term being used for it, yet it was a genocide of almost 8,000 Muslim people killed in that area.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Our inability to call a genocide is not just limited to Serbia. Our biggest problem is that we simply will not and cannot call any action a genocide, even when it demonstrable, until it goes through the United Nations, yet other countries such as America have declared genocides in China; we sit silent.

[John Howell]

It does not have to go to the UN; it could go to a reasonable court. In two recent cases in Germany—I have forgotten what the particular issue was—a genocide was declared and that has allowed us to pursue that. That is the position taken by a number of charities that take the lead in this area.

In order to keep an eye on what Russia is doing, we need to have our eyes open, we need to have eyes in the back of our head and we need to be aware of all of the incidents that are occurring around Europe. It is a great shame that the effect of Russia is creeping out of places such as Serbia and is affecting attitudes in the west to places such as Kosovo. I very much regret that and I hope that we can take that issue forward in supporting Kosovo against Serbia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, because most of it has already been said—although that has never stopped us from repeating it in this place.

It is a real privilege to speak in this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on obtaining it. I always feel slightly worried when the word “grand” is used of anything, because if we are not careful it covers a whole lot of more tactical aspects that we forget about. However, he is right that this is a debate about the grand strategy of what was once the Soviet Union, has since been broken up, and is now Russia.

To begin with, I want to dwell on a remarkable charity named Siobhan’s Trust that my hon. Friend—I call her my hon. Friend—the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and I visited and worked with. Interestingly, although we are not supposed to say this, the man who set up and runs the charity, David Fox-Pitt, is sitting in the Gallery right now. He is the epitome of what is very best about this United Kingdom. When all the refugees were pouring across the border and lost in the middle of Ukraine, having been struck, the team upped sticks from where they were in Scotland, with their trucks, and headed straight for the border to try to provide food and sustenance to those people.

Siobhan’s Trust got there weeks ahead of Oxfam and all the rest, and crossed the border because the team realised there were more refugees in Ukraine than were coming out. They raised the money themselves, got support from companies such as Dr. Oetker from Germany and Italian pizza companies, and got trucks with pizza ovens on. They now go to places as close as maybe a mile or so from the Russian border—in fact, quite recently they went into Kherson, just after it was liberated, and fed people there. That was where they came under shellfire, and I suspect that was because the Russians knew they were there and what they were doing.

As my hon. Friend said, the charity feeds 4,000 people who are dispossessed, living in freezing conditions, often with no heating or hot water, sometimes with no water at all and certainly with no electricity. The one high spot of their day will be the arrival of the trucks from Siobhan’s Trust, led by wonderfully eccentric British people dressed in Ukrainian kilts. The Ukrainians did not know they had a kilt until Siobhan’s Trust arrived in Ukraine, but now they have a national kilt, and I hope it will become something that is worn on the fashion catwalks of Europe to celebrate—[Interruption.] I know I am not a fashion icon, but nevertheless I would be prepared to wear it.

The beauty of this is all the work the charity does. We sometimes forget about this when we get into the grand strategy, but when we were over there, as my hon. Friend said, we realised what it really means when we talk about grand strategy. It means seeing the destroyed buildings, blocks of flats that had people living in them when the rockets hit; it means being with the soldiers when they have to clear up the dead bodies in villages that have been shelled and rocketed; it means never being able to come off a single-track path because the Russians have strewn anti-personnel mines all over the fields and houses in the hope that people will enter them. That is what it really means. It means that this barbaric, dictatorial, fascist crook called Putin has wrought devastation and damage on ordinary people whose lives were pretty poor in the first instance.

One of the Ukrainian guides said to us, “The thing you don’t understand is that we don’t have and have never had the kind of support and money that you have. When you look at our villages that are devastated, you see pretty low-standard villages, but what has happened is that the Russians have moved all the troops they have from the east of Russia, where the living standards are even lower by a long way. For them, this is Manhattan. They rob every single house and everything that’s in it, and that which they can’t rob, they rape. They use rape as a tool of war and a tool of suppression. That is why we evacuated so many of our women and children from these villages—because we knew what was going to happen to them if and when the Russians came.”

As the hon. Member for Bradford South said, we went on to visit the military hospital in Kharkiv, which was very sobering. The hospital gets rocketed at least two or three times a week. When it gets hit, the people who work there carry on, despite the explosions around them, with what they are doing. Interestingly, they said to me, “Please can you go back and tell your Government that we need armoured ambulances desperately, because we cannot get the wounded to the hospitals quickly enough? We need that more than almost anything else.” Secondly, they said, “We desperately need help in terms of paramedics, to stabilise people before they get into the ambulances. You cannot understand the difference it makes to whether or not we save their lives. We just don’t have enough. If only Britain could lead the west in providing people who can educate and train paramedics for us urgently, that would save more lives.”

Thirdly, they said, “The problem now is that so many of our soldiers are committing suicide because they cannot cope with the total devastation and the mental breakdown that comes from combat stress. The UK and America are the two countries that probably know the most about this, because of Afghanistan and Iraq. We desperately need some help from the UK to educate and train our mental health specialists in how to deal with this. It’s a huge problem.” It is a huge problem in America and here in the UK, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has helped us get in touch with Combat Stress.

[Matt Western]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in politics, I am interested to know what he thinks the UK and other countries could provide beyond what he just described in terms of humanitarian and infrastructure support to the people of Ukraine.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

There is a huge amount that can be provided from what are essentially wealthy nations. We are wealthy nations, and when we compare ourselves with where Ukraine is, we are very wealthy. It is just the determination of what we want to do. In Ukraine, they desperately need arms; they need supplies of ammunition and weapons. There is no question about that, but they also need—and this is about humanity—help to survive in all these areas. The brave men and women who are fighting on the front deserve all the support they can get, but the bit that is missing when we debate this issue is the people behind who have been devastated and shelled and have no homes. We need to find a way to help them as well. I beg the Government to talk to their counterparts in Ukraine and find a way to get the rest of western Europe to supply the things that Ukraine requires that do not have a gun on them but will save many, many lives if they are provided.

I completely agree that Russia’s grand strategy is to expand. It has never got over losing the land that it held in the Soviet Union, and it wants it back; it has been absolutely clear about that. Strangely enough, countries in the west—Germany is a good example—have failed to recognise the real threat of becoming addicted to something that is supplied by a country as volatile and ill led as this. I come back to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. How in heaven’s name did the rest of Europe allow that to happen? How in heaven’s name did they allow Germany to bully them into believing it was none of their business? All of us—every country—takes a share of that. It should never have been allowed to be built, and I do not exclude my own country in that regard. It showed a sign to Russia that as addicted as we were, we would never do anything against Russia. That was as important as supplying them with weapons, because Russia then saw us and said, “You know what? They put money first and energy second, and that energy is from us. They will never come and stop us.”

In reality, this is our war—we cannot forget that. It is as much as if we were standing on the frontline with the Ukrainians. We have to be there with them in spirit, and we have to give them the weapons, because they must win this war. The thing that haunts me now more than anything else from that visit is the one phrase they use, which is, “Please don’t forget us.” They say, “We are fighting for our freedom and our lives, and we are worried that you are getting bored of what is going on over here. Please do not forget us.” All I simply say in the House today is that we must not forget them. We must be with them. This is our war; we must win it. Slava Ukraini, heroyam slava.

International Development Committee

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I have been appalled at what is happening to the Congolese people. The main point of our report is that there is a national strategy. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned recommendation 7 of the Truro report, which says the strategy must be “legal not political.” It is shocking that the UK Government have not called out what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I am keen that the Committee looks into this further.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

This is a remarkable report, and the hon. Lady should be commended for her leadership in this matter. I wonder whether we should be pressing the Government to do more in critical areas. I am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, and we are dragging our feet on sanctioning the architects and perpetrators of abuse in many parts of the world, particularly China. We have sanctioned fewer people in China than most countries have, certainly far fewer than the USA has, and we still do not recognise that there is a genocide taking place in Xinjiang, where rape is used as a weapon of that genocide. Would she like to comment on that?

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his leadership on this topic. What is happening in Xinjiang would now fall within the Government’s remit because they have acknowledged that atrocities not only happen in conflict. One of our central asks is that atrocity prevention goes across Government so that this country uses every tool and speaks with one voice. I hope the Government grasp this opportunity to step up and be a world leader on atrocity prevention.